UNDERDESIGN, OVERDESIGN, REDESIGN

08 November 2006

Peter Billak

Peter Billak

A few weeks ago, I participated in an evaluation of students'
works at Jan van Eyck Akademie in Maastricht. The students were
defending the way they approached the designing of a publication which
they have been preparing. While explaining their work, six students out
of eight mentioned that they tried 'not to overdesign' the articles.
Afterwards, a stormy discussion broke out as to what 'not to
overdesign' means. I must say that ever since I have been living in the
Netherlands, I might have expected such a discussion.

The
tendency 'not to overdesign' can also be observed in the USA and
England but in the Netherlands it seems to be strongest. The
Netherlands have a long tradition of visual culture; it is quite
logical that in the country which in the 1970s and 80s took the lead in
graphic design, designers are now trying to reappraise it.

Only
a few years ago, the greatest impression was made by the technical
skills of designers and their capability to manipulate graphic
software. This approach may be compared with the Victorian style which
dominated Western Europe for almost one hundred years. The Industrial
Revolution of the late 18th century, and the new possibilities of
printing, utterly confused designers and the two worlds of design and
decoration merged into one. The result of today's technological changes
is also decorative design, and today it is the computer which has
brought an unprecedented mannerist and baroque character into the
sphere of graphic design. The new possibilities of design caused a
fragmentation of information and a forced, complex ambiguousness which
came to be appreciated far more than simplicity and functionality.
Designer's questions have changed and instead of 'what' and 'why, the
designer has become satisfied with the question 'how'. Graphic
designers have zealously looked at nice pictures and thought how they
were done. Once you discover the answer, all that is left from the
picture is only a collection of filters and tricks. Such design does
not say anything, apart from showing off the designer's technical
bravura. After years of celebrating a designer's individuality, the
personal expression is reevaluated and the genuine question is not how
to express the designer's ego, but how to communicate in the most
effective way using the means available.

Schools of design
put the emphasis on formal experiments without reflecting on their
raison d'etre. This formality results in a complete loss of design
values. Design, as a way of communication, fails and is manoeuvred into
the position of a decorative element.

Non-design Thanks
to the narcissism of designers, the word 'design' has obtained negative
connotations. The natural reaction to such a situation is a rejection
of design. The interest of designers moves from a demonstration of
their capabilities and possibilities offered by contemporary
technology, to the attempt to return to the essence of design and
express it in a simpler way. The public need clear messages and not the
complex messages from designer virtuosos. After a lengthy design feast,
the time of sobering up and coming back to the rudiments has arrived.
We could define a purism and a rejection of design as yet another style
of the 1990s; similar trends can be seen in fashion, interiour design
and architecture, however the return to the basics of design is merely
a reaction to overcomplicated design and an attempt to return to the
foundations of design on which it is possible to begin working. The
American design critic Michael Rock says that anytime he comes to the
Netherlands, he feels as if he has come to Legoland. Everything is so
nice, tidy and colourful that one would be happy to twist the
cute-coloured policeman's head off. Michael Rock probably hints at the
production of Studio Dumbar which is very visible around the Low
Countries. Studio Dumbar has designed corporate identities for the
Dutch Post office, the Police, Railways and many cultural institutions.
This work is an example of overaesthetised design. There is nothing to
reproach it for because it is exactly what their clients wanted from
them, but in my opinion it is baroque design and purely decorative.

Nothing In
today's environment which is crowded with objects and colours, white
space gains value, which is quite paradoxical when we realise that
white space is often regarded as a lack of content. Nevertheless, white
pages can present the most radical design. The book 'View to the
Future' which is a collection of interviews between students and
renowned Dutch graphic designers, includes examples of work from all
the designers who participated. Karel Martens, one of the most
respected Dutch designer, was asked to design the dividers. His answer
was to leave them white, in order to relax the reader between articles.
The white pages make a shocking and challenging impression here. (Not
to) use white space is an important design decision. It takes years for
one to learn to use it. When every single square centimetre of the
landscape has been cultivated and every object is beautifully designed,
then the natural reaction is to reject design. Despite this, it
sometimes seems as if designers were paid according to the percentage
of the available space they use or per used elements. I think that more
is expected from design than simply filling up the space. A designer's
work can also be his decision to do nothing. One of the most impressive
interiors I have seen recently was a little cafe in London. A former
butcher's shop, it was to be converted into a stylish cafe, and so the
owners invited a professional interior designer. After a thorough
examination, he decided not to change anything - even keeping the old
name - Butcher. Now young people drink their coffee there sitting
amongst meat hooks, and everybody is happy - the visitors, the owner,
as well as the designer who was paid for doing nothing (or for finding
the ideal solution).

More than enough examples of the
opposite extreme can be found in design. How many times has it happened
to you that in a shop you haven't been able to find your favourite
product simply because somebody decided to change the design. Many of
the redesigned corporate identities are unnecessary and are actually
more of a liability to the companies than an asset. We have got to the
situation when novelty is appreciated more than functionality. Does new
really mean better? When everything becomes possible, limitations cease
to exist and design becomes an endless search for novelty. New becomes
the only criterion of design and this is incompatible with its
fundamental idea of design: design as a medium, as one of the languages
of communication.

Contemporary graphic design no longer
reacts to its environment, the political, social, or economic
situation, it reacts only to other designs. The design masturbation,
design created with the intention of stunning colleagues- and winning
design awards makes design a suspicious word. Design cannot exist in
isolation from society and serve as a standard unto itself. Whether we
like it or not, graphic design is only a secondary product of the
development of visual communication.

Disney-design Designers,
instead of looking for the solution for the real world, create their
own imaginary worlds far from reality. The essence of this conduct
reminds us more of Disneyland than the real world. A designer's world
is sentimental and beautiful, just as that proposed by Walt Disney when
he was building his first theme park. Disney managed to create a
new,completely isolated world into which you can only get if you accept
Disney's vision of the better world, a world full of a nostalgia for
something which has never been implemented and something which is more
real and better than reality.

The contemporary director of
the Disney corporation, Michael Eisner, is considered to be the Medici
of our time due to his interest in modern architecture. Eisner invited
the world's best architects to work on buildings for Disney World.
These architects only confirm the state of today's design. Design has
become isolated and elitist.

The fact that it can be done
in another way is also proven by thesporadic attempts of people who
believe that the principles of design do not change and that placing
the contents into context has always been the nature of design. At the
end of last year, Michael Rock and Susan Sellars opened the, first
museum of design where objects are put back into their original context
instead of being removed from their natural environment. The aim of the
Museum of the Ordinary is to point out the invisibility of design in
the municipal environment and appeal to the public with the intention
of explaining what design is. The Museum is defined by four points in
New York City and comprises thirty streets of Manhattan. The Museum of
the Ordinary is the complete opposite of a static and isolated museum -
the Museum and the city are identical and present an integrated whole.
The collection of this Museum is extensive indeed. It contains all the
objects which happen to be in the given space. Rock and Sellars
directly answer the question how to exhibit contemporary design by
pointing to its context and helping the public in how to regard design.
Shiny glass exhibition cases do not say anything about the state of
contemporary design and an object, being taken away from its
environment can only suffer when its natural function, reason and
connection become lost. The permanent character of conventional design
collections works against the ephemerality of design, and it is a
street which can disprove this misunderstanding.

Although
such a project may be understood again as another ironic attempt from
the rank of elite designers, Michael Rock and Susan Sellars pointed to
the crisis of contemporary design and strengthened my opinion that a
true understanding of design depends on comprehending its historical,
social and economic milieu. Design has a temporary and culturally
distinctive character. The role and relevancy of design can be
alternated by an insensitive treatment or by a misunderstanding of
design's aim.

Authors' non-designAlthough
the reaction to the overcomplicated design of the 90s could have been
expected, it is interesting to see the way in which it has developed.
Graphic designers and design theoreticians have spent the last thirty
years trying to find a definition of the design profession. They have
tried to discover the principles which would clearly distinguish
professional designers from amateurs. They discussed licenses, a
requirement of university education etc. Designers passionately
discussed the question of authorship in design. As soon as the position
of a designer was clearly defined, the designers now deliberately
renounce it. They renounce something which they never really had -
recognition of their profession. The attempt of designers to
distinguish themselves from amateurs with computers has turned through
180 degrees and today many designers try hard to get as close to these
amateurs as possible.

In this respect today's design is
thirty years behind the theoretical literature. In the late 60s Roland
Barthes and Michel Foucault redefined the function of a writer.
Barthes's quote: 'the birth of the reader for the price of the author's
death' contributed to the refutation of the popular myth that the
author is also the owner of the text. The question is not 'what the
author wanted to say' anymore but 'what the work says'. We forget to
have a look at what graphic design contains, but we look to see whether
it contains that which we were promised by its creators. In this way
the public is being deliberately fooled, and looses its natural active
role. Therefore the designer is not the owner of the form but of the
contents.

Design itself ought to be about a denial of
ownership, and enable another interpretation of design. When graphic
design ceases to be separable from its creator, then it is no longer
functional. The designer's work must be able to be judged regardless of
the designer's reputation. The question of who designed it should be
the last one asked. This could help to improve the accessibility of the
content in design.

The endThere is an
enormous difference between what the public thinksabout design and the
professional discussion presented at a symposium like this one.
However, before we begin to convince the public about the importance of
a new design, we should think whether it is really necessary.
Frequently we, ourselves, are the answer to the question of what is the
cause of design's low prestige in the eye of the public. It is
pointless to pat backs appreciatively within the circle of our friends
and talk about how good we are, and that it is only that the public
doesn't understand us. Design is not about decorating, illustrating or
embellishing things. Design is to improve things and create new values.
Design is rather a question than an answer. We ought to learn to
correctly word these questions.

About Dot dot dotDot dot dot is the title of a new graphic design magazine intended to
fill a gap in current arts publishing. We are not interested in
re-promoting established material or creating another 'portfolio'
magazine. Instead, we offer inventive critical journalism on a variety
of topics related both directly and indirectly to graphic design.

About Peter Billak
Peter Bilak is a graphic designer based in Den Haag, Netherlands,
working mainly with typography and electronic media. His work has been
presented in magazine such I.D., Items, U&lc, Graphics
International, etc. Designer of fonts for FontShop Intenational,
founding editor of dot-dot-dot, graphic design/visual culture magazine,
contributing editor to Dealeatur and Designum magazine. In addition to
his design practice PB gives talks and presentations regularly accross
Europe.